Delhi HC sets aside disqualification of AAP MLAs on Office of Profit issue

In a huge relief for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), the Delhi High Court today set aside the disqualification of the party’s MLAs for allegedly holding offices of profit..The MLAs had filed a plea seeking quashing of a notification issued by the President of India, that had disqualified 20 legislators. .The Division Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar had reserved its judgment on February 28, after hearing arguments for several days..The submissions made by Senior Advocate KV Viswanathan, appearing for the disqualified legislators, were threefold:.That the principles of natural justice were not followed during the proceedings conducted before the Election Commission.That one of the Election Commissioners, OP Rawat, had initially recused himself, but had later joined the proceedings in a way which is contrary to law.That the order was undersigned by Election Commissioner Sunil Arora, who had not heard the petitioners during the proceedings..The Election Commission refuted the above arguments and stated that the principles of natural justice were diligently followed during the proceedings. It was stated that the order of the Commission did not suffer from any infirmity..However, the Bench today agreed with the submissions made by the petitioners, and remanded the matter back to the Election Commission for proper hearing. It was held that,.“Opinion of the ECI dated 19th January, 2018 is vitiated and bad in law for failure to comply with the principles of natural justice. .The Court issued a writ of Certiorari quashing the said opinion dated 19th January, 2018 and the consequent order/ notification dated 20th January, 2018 for violation of principles of natural justice, namely,.Failure to give oral hearing and opportunity to address arguments on merits of the issue whether the petitioners had incurred disqualification.Failure to inform that O.P. Rawat had expressed his intention to rejoin proceedings after his recusal.Lastly because Sunil Arora had not participated and no hearings were held before him..On the issue of OP Rawant’s rejoining the proceedings, the Bench observed,.“We would unhesitatingly and without any reservation hold that the rejoining or withdrawal of recusal by Mr.O.P. Rawat should have been communicated and informed to the petitioners.”.The Bench did not give its opinion on the definition of the phrase ‘office of profit’ as it remanded the matter back to the Election Commission and did not want to cause any prejudice..The Court directed the Election Commission to hear arguments and thereafter decide the all important issue i.e. meaning of the expression ‘office of profit held under the Government’ and re-examine the factual matrix..The matter had emanated out of a petition filed by one Prashant Patel in 2015, whereby he had sought the disqualification of 21 AAP MLAs on grounds of holding office of profit as Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministers of the Delhi government..Initially, the legislators had approached the High Court seeking a stay on the order of the Election Commission, which had found them guilty of holding offices of profit. However, the plea was dismissed as withdrawn after the President issued the impugned notification..Read Judgment: